AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)

There were a number of features of the case in the Appellant’s favour, which were properly considered by the Judge, in particular his poor health. However, the Judge gave appropriate weight to all the relevant factors in the case, and it cannot be said that her conclusion was wrong. Whilst there has been a delay in respect of which the Judge may have been under a misapprehension, she was entitled to find that the Appellant was a fugitive who had failed to face his criminal responsibility in Hungary. The impact of delay on the balancing exercise was therefore reduced. The Appellant did not have a false sense of security.

Whilst there will inevitably be hardship caused to the family in the event of the Applicant’s extradition, this is not a sole carer case. The Appellant’s wife is capable of running the household and looking after her children by herself because that is, to all intents and purposes, the present position. At the moment she also has to care for the Appellant. There are many sources of support for her. In all these circumstances, the consequences of extradition amount to hardship, of the sort which is inevitable, but are not exceptionally severe.

As the Respondent submitted the Judge carried out an orthodox balancing exercise and correctly concluded that the Appellant’s extradition would be compatible with his Article 8 rights. It was open to her on the evidence to find that the features in favour of extradition outweighed those militating against it. Amongst the factors in favour of extradition were the sentence which remains to be served and the powerful public interest in the UK honouring its international obligations.

In the context of an appeal on Article 8 grounds, the sole question for the court is whether the District Judge’s ultimate decision was wrong: that is a question which considers the overall outcome of the determination in a complex balancing exercise, rather than the identification of any individual errors or omissions. It is not arguable in my view that the judge came to the wrong decision in this case. For that reason, I refuse permission to appeal.